MESSAGE
| DATE | 2023-05-14 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|
-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a89:b0:3e3:7dd2:47fc with SMTP id s9-20020a05622a1a8900b003e37dd247fcmr8214229qtc.10.1683901917514;
Fri, 12 May 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:a687:b0:18b:1b36:4747 with SMTP id
wh7-20020a056871a68700b0018b1b364747mr9754448oab.4.1683901917239; Fri, 12 May
2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: reader2.panix.com!panix!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:8dee:f400:a8a0:f171:2faf:ba38;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:8dee:f400:a8a0:f171:2faf:ba38
References:
<3945b9af-47a1-449f-8d8f-cfe629f1e309n-at-googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
From: marc verhaegen
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 14:31:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 6052
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77300
Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 08:24:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
> oot...-at-hot.ee wrote:
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> > That is not that popular hypothesis.
> Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
> > You typically use it as straw man.
> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.
> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquarboreal," I see it as
> evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> bipedalism was most useful.
> There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> a number of environments is "Popular."
> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago.
> Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush.
> Lol!
> "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
:-DDD
brain size, stone tools, occipital pachy-osteo-sclerosis, large paranasal air sinuses, external nose, shell engravings, etc.
> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquarboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
1) primates = arboreal (arbor=tree),
2) humans = ex-semi-aquatic (aqua=water),
3) evolution = gradual:
c 1990, I "predicted" aquarboreal ancestors (swamp?mangrove?coastal?...forest),
c 1995, the Ndoki wading gorillas were described, later followed by wading bonobos, orangs & now even chimps AFAIK.
:-)
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> Coastal dispersal.
> And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> using terrestrial ALA.
> So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> It fits.
I can only agree with JTEM:
only incredible idiots believe their Plio-Pleistocene ancestors lived in African savannas...
:-DDD
-- end of forwarded message --
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
